Home› Case Studies
Client Outcomes

Real Engagements.
Verified Results.

Every case study below represents a real client engagement. Details are anonymised to protect client confidentiality — a commitment we make to every client regardless of outcome. The results are real. The timelines are accurate. The methods are the same ones we use for every engagement.

🔒
On anonymisation: All identifying details have been removed or generalised. Industry, geography, and role are sometimes adjusted where they would make identification possible. The nature of the problem, the approach taken, and the outcomes achieved are reported accurately.
Search Suppression
Page 2
Primary negative result moved to
9 mo.
To first-page clearance
Senior Executive · Financial Services · UK
A decade-old regulatory investigation — still ranking #3 for a C-suite candidate's name
A CFO shortlisted for a FTSE 250 board position had a 2013 FCA investigation result ranking third for their name on Google. The investigation had concluded without penalty, but the FCA announcement page had accumulated authority over a decade. The board search firm raised it.
FCA result displaced to page 2 within 9 months via 14 press placements and 6 authority profiles
New page 1: official bio, Forbes Councils profile, two trade interviews, LinkedIn, two sector awards citations
AI outputs across all 8 platforms shifted to reflect current career narrative within 4 months of first placements
Board appointment proceeded. Monitoring retainer maintained.
Timeline: 9 months · Search Suppression + AI Reputation
Review Management
34
Fake reviews removed
4.2★
Rating recovered to
Restaurant Group · 6 Locations · Europe
Coordinated 1-star attack drops group average from 4.4 to 3.1 in 72 hours
A dispute with a former franchise partner triggered a coordinated Google review attack across all six locations. Thirty-four 1-star reviews appeared within 72 hours from accounts with no prior activity.
28 of 34 fake reviews removed within 3 weeks via documented pattern analysis
Rating recovered from 3.1 to 4.2 within 8 weeks
Attack monitoring implemented — zero undetected repeat incidents in 14 months
Timeline: 8 weeks · Review Management
AI Reputation
8/8
AI platforms now positive
4 mo.
To full narrative correction
Series B SaaS · Technology · US
ChatGPT describing a 2021 data incident as "unresolved" — three years after full remediation
A SaaS company's sales team reported losing deals at the discovery stage. Prospects were using ChatGPT to research the product, which described a 2021 data incident as "ongoing" despite full remediation, regulatory sign-off, and a subsequent clean bill of health from SOC 2 audit.
Source audit identified 4 news articles anchoring the negative AI narrative
8 authoritative third-party sources published documenting remediation and current security posture
All 8 AI platforms shifted to accurate, positive outputs within 4 months
Sales team reported materially fewer objections at discovery stage in follow-up survey
Timeline: 4 months · AI Reputation Management
Crisis Management
72h
To initial narrative control
6 wks
To page 1 clearance
National Law Firm · 12 Offices · UK
A former partner's misconduct finding reported nationally — firm's name appearing in every headline
A former partner's SRA misconduct finding was reported by four national titles in a single day. The firm had taken swift action, but search results showed six negative articles on page 1 for the firm's name within 48 hours of publication.
Crisis response statement placed in two of the four reporting publications within 72 hours
Rapid authority content programme launched — 8 placements in 6 weeks
5 of 6 negative results displaced from page 1 within 6 weeks
Remaining result (The Times) at position 8 by month 4; monitoring continues
Timeline: Active crisis + 4 months · Crisis + Search Suppression
Review Management
2.3→4.1
Glassdoor rating
9 mo.
To 4.1★
Private Equity Firm · London
Post-restructuring Glassdoor rating at 2.3 — appearing in LP due diligence and affecting recruitment
Following a portfolio restructuring that resulted in redundancies across three portfolio companies, the firm's Glassdoor rating fell to 2.3. LPs were flagging it in due diligence meetings and talent acquisition costs had increased measurably.
Response framework implemented across all existing reviews — professional, empathetic, non-defensive
Compliant review acquisition programme targeting current employees launched
Rating: 2.3 → 3.4 at month 3 → 3.7 at month 6 → 4.1 at month 9
Positive Glassdoor profile now proactively shared by HR team in candidate communications
Timeline: 9 months · Review Management
Wikipedia
10 wks
Article live
P1 #2
Google rank for name
Serial Founder · Technology · US
No Wikipedia article before a Series C raise — AI giving inconsistent, incomplete descriptions to investors
A founder preparing for a Series C had extensive press coverage but no Wikipedia article. AI systems gave different, often incomplete answers when investors searched for them. Knowledge Panel was absent.
Notability confirmed — 23 qualifying independent sources identified and formatted
Wikipedia article published within 10 weeks of engagement
Knowledge Panel populated within 10 days of publication
All 8 AI platforms shifted to draw from Wikipedia within 6 weeks, giving consistent, accurate outputs
Timeline: 10 weeks · Wikipedia + Knowledge Panel
Personal Reputation
P2
Forum result displaced to
7 mo.
To page 1 clearance
Consultant Surgeon · Healthcare · UK
A patient forum thread with unverified claims ranking on page 1 — affecting referrals and hospital appointments
A forum thread containing unverified patient complaints was ranking fifth for a consultant surgeon's name. The complaints predated a significant practice change and the surgeon had no ability to respond on the forum. Referral rates had declined noticeably.
Authority content programme — 6 publications in medical trade press, 2 podcast appearances, updated NHS and private clinic profiles
Forum result displaced to page 2 at month 7
Page 1 now: clinic site, NHS profile, Doctify 4.9★, two trade articles, LinkedIn, a podcast episode
Monitoring retainer maintained; no recurrence in 18 months
Timeline: 7 months · Personal Reputation + Search Suppression
AI Reputation
3 mo.
Perplexity corrected
5 mo.
All platforms positive
Managing Director · Professional Services · UAE
Perplexity linking an executive to a company they left 4 years ago — still appearing in competitor descriptions
A managing director was repeatedly linked by Perplexity and You.com to a former employer in ways that implied current association. The former employer had since faced regulatory difficulties. Due diligence searches were surfacing the association.
Current role and company clearly established across 11 new independent sources
Former employer association removed from Perplexity outputs at month 3
All 8 AI platforms giving accurate current-role descriptions within 5 months
LinkedIn and Crunchbase profiles audited and updated as part of source normalisation
Timeline: 5 months · AI Reputation Management
Crisis Management
48h
Response strategy live
12 wks
Narrative rebalanced
Founder · E-Commerce · Germany
A viral LinkedIn post alleging workplace culture failures — 3,000 shares before the founder was alerted
A former employee's LinkedIn post alleging systemic workplace culture problems had reached 3,000 shares before the founder was alerted. Three tech media outlets had picked up the story. The founder had partial receipts but no communications strategy.
Response strategy and holding statement drafted and approved within 48 hours
Founder interview placed in one of the three reporting outlets — giving right of response
12-week authority programme: 8 placements establishing culture credentials with evidence
Search results for founder name now 9 positives, 1 neutral on page 1 at month 5
Timeline: 5 months · Crisis + Personal Reputation
Search Suppression
#1–8
Owned or positive results
11 mo.
Full page 1 clearance
Mid-Size Accountancy Firm · UK
A Which? investigation article ranking #2 for the firm's name — appearing in every new client due diligence search
A Which? consumer investigation from 2019 had accumulated enough authority to rank second for the firm's name despite the firm having substantially changed its practices and fees. Every new client due diligence search surfaced it prominently.
Comprehensive authority programme: 12 trade placements, 3 thought leadership series, 4 award citations
Which? article displaced from page 1 at month 11
Positions 1–8 on page 1 now owned or independently positive
Monitoring and ongoing content programme maintained at reduced rate
Timeline: 11 months · Search Suppression
Review Management
2.8→4.3
G2 rating
4 mo.
To 4.3★
Series A SaaS · Product Analytics · US
G2 rating of 2.8 being cited by ChatGPT — losing deals before sales conversations began
A SaaS company's G2 rating was anchored by reviews left during a difficult product migration 18 months earlier. ChatGPT was citing the rating when prospects asked about the product, costing discovery calls before they started.
11 policy-violating reviews successfully removed across G2 and Capterra
Compliant acquisition programme generated 47 genuine reviews over 4 months
Rating moved from 2.8 to 4.3 — G2 badge achieved
ChatGPT outputs shifted to reflect new rating within 6 weeks of rating improvement
Timeline: 4 months · Review Management + AI Monitoring
Search Suppression
3→11
Negative result position
8 mo.
To page 2
Entrepreneur · Property · Australia
A failed business venture from 7 years ago ranking #3 — surfacing in every investor and partner search
A property entrepreneur's failed 2017 venture — which had received brief but negative press coverage — was ranking third for their name despite a successful decade of subsequent activity. New investors were raising it in first meetings.
8 authority placements in Australian property and business media over 8 months
Negative result displaced to position 11 (page 2) at month 8
New page 1: 6 owned or independently positive results covering current ventures
Wikipedia article created at month 10 — now ranking #2 for name
Timeline: 10 months · Search Suppression + Wikipedia
94%
Of targeted results successfully displaced from page 1
60–90
Days to first measurable search movement
38+
Countries where we have completed engagements
8/8
AI platforms covered in every monitoring engagement
On Our Results

What These Cases
Do and Don't Show

The cases above are real. The timelines are accurate. The methods used were the same white-hat, policy-compliant techniques we apply to every engagement.

What they do not show — by design — is every engagement we have taken on. We are selective about which cases we feature, which means these cases represent better-than-average outcomes in some respects.

We do not guarantee these results for your situation. Timelines vary based on the competitive dynamics of your specific queries, the domain authority of content working against you, the volume of existing reviews, and many other factors. What we guarantee is an honest assessment of what is achievable before you commit to anything.

What every engagement includes
Free written audit before any commitment
Honest assessment of realistic outcomes and timelines
Senior specialist assigned — no juniors or account managers
White-hat methods only — no platform risk to you
Monthly reports with actual data, not activity summaries
Month-to-month after initial 3-month commitment
NDA available before first discussion if required
Complete discretion regardless of engagement outcome
Get Started

See What's Possible
for Your Situation

Every engagement starts with a free audit. We will tell you what we found, what it means, and what a realistic programme would look like — before you decide anything.

Get My Free Audit → Discuss Your Case